July 15th, 2008


50 reasons (NOT) to believe in god

#37 Science is constantly recorrecting its findings. Past theories contradict certain beliefs which are held today. Our present 'discoveries' may change again in the future to rediscover how we originally came into existence.

That's a proof? A bald-faced supposition?

The whole point of science is to do careful experimentation in order to get closer to the truth over time. And yes, things change, but if you think that is a bad thing, there isn't much convincing I can do to the contrary. What I do know is that science has proof and religious belief in god doesn't. And until that changes, what possible reason can you give me to abandon all that evidence in favour of non-evidence?

And if the evidence should appear that proves your supposition, I'll be happy to reconsider at that time. Until then, you've given me no reason to think you're more likely to be right now or ever.

(I should also point out to whomever wrote this list that you are misusing many of the words in the paragraph at the top. "recorrecting" suggests that the findings were corrected and then corrected again. "correcting" is sufficient. "Beliefs" are not the same thing as "conclusions" which is what science holds. Religious people have "beliefs". 'discoveries' suggests things to me, not theories. Like discovering a planet. You don't 'discover' evolution, for instance. Misusing words or putting unnecessary re-s on the front is a good way to makes yourself sound uneducated and isn't terribly inspiring. I've avoided mentioning most of the spelling errors in previous 'proofs' as well, but they don't help either.)